RE: Re[6]: [cgmo-webcgm] implications of URI vs. IRI

[Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>]

Further information on the issue, here is a dialog with Chris, where I 
asked for clarification on the intent of the text in SVG.  "Both forms 
allowed" is correct (with one small wrinkle about BLANK.)

>At 12:04 PM 10/12/2005 +0200, Chris Lilley wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 12, 2005, 2:09:42 AM, Lofton wrote:
>
>LH> Hi Chris,
>
>LH> I'm interested in the intent behind this statement from SVG11, section
>LH> 5.3.2, "URI reference attributes", and perhaps your memory of those ol'
>LH> days has the answer:
>
>It was a half way house to IRIs. Well, more than half way, in fact. In
>SVG 1.2 that language is replaced by a reference to IRI.
>
> >>"The value of the href attribute must be a URI reference as defined in
> >>[RFC2396], or must result in a URI reference after the escaping procedure
> >>described below is applied. The procedure is applied when passing the URI
> >>reference to a URI resolver."
>
>LH> I read that as specifying either of these as acceptable in SVG content:
>
>LH> <image href="raster%20reference%20image.png" .../>
>LH> <image href="raster reference image.png" .../>
>
>Unfortunately the space character is special (some attributes take
>space-separated lists of URIs or IRIs) and always needs to be escaped,
>per IRI. Pretty much any other character not allowed in URIs would have
>fitted into that example.
>
>LH> I.e., either the post-uri-encoded form (which is a rfc2396-compliant URI
>LH> reference), or the pre-uri-encoded form, which is not yet a
>LH> rfc2396-compliant URI reference,  may appear in SVG content.  Correct?
>
>Yes.
>
>LH> -Lofton.
>
>LH> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG11/struct.html#xlinkRefAttrs
>LH> [2] http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3986.txt